uuffoo22:
Due to the long delay, the jury's isolation time has reached a record level. During this period,
ten jurors were either disqualified or voluntarily asked to leave the jury for various reasons. Fortunately,
besides the twelve jurors, there are twelve alternate jurors. From beginning to end, the alternate jurors participated in the court trial activities together with the formal assessors. Whenever a juror leaves for some reason, there is a backup < P >. Once all the candidates are exhausted and someone has to quit, the trial may fail because of the shortage of
jurors, and everything will start over. Therefore, everyone is sweating, and they have been trying for so long, so don't screw it up at the last minute because there are not enough jurors. Fortunately, the rest of these people
persisted until the end.
Jurors are the most mysterious people in the court. On the one hand, it is because of the mystery caused by the "right to kill and kill" in their hands. On the other hand, the camera lens in the court has swept all the people, and everything < P > is open, only the jurors have never appeared in front of everyone. Because it's not allowed. Therefore,
whenever a juror "quits from the mystery", there is always a large group of reporters following. Generally speaking,
they all covered their faces, got into the car in a hurry and never showed up again, because they didn't want to affect the quiet life of themselves and their families because of this
jury experience. However, there are also people who answer reporters' questions or even accept TV interviews once they have removed this identity and freed themselves from legal constraints. Looking at these jurors, I
sometimes shout: Americans let such people decide a big case! I'm convinced. It's all ordinary people randomly found on the street. It's so common that you can't figure out: how can a country with the most scientific development and advanced industry in the world hand over the judgment power of all major cases to an illiterate old hundred surname, but let a large group of doctors of law look on!
The defendants' lawyers provided very few witnesses, and compared with the prosecution's hearing time, this period of hearing time also seemed
very short. However, several national and even international masters have emerged. Among them, there is a Nobel Prize winner. Perhaps because we are from China, we pay special attention to a Chinese witness. In fact, his appearance has attracted everyone's attention, because Dr. Li is a world-famous senior criminologist. He is a friend of Shapiro, Simpson's lawyer, and it is natural for them to get to know each other. Shapiro is a lawyer, who has handled all major cases, while Dr. Li is a famous criminologist, who has given Shapiro a lot of help from a technical point of view. He has presented key evidence for many major cases. Some of these evidences are used to convict criminals, and some help the suspect < P > to get rid of them. He just presents scientific evidence from a scientific point of view, and this is his job. It is his scientific research achievements and impartial scientific attitude that are universally respected in related fields. When Simpson just returned to Los Angeles from Chicago, he received Shapiro's request for his assistance in scientific evidence, and later agreed to testify in court. This kind of expert's testimony is paid, but he obviously attaches great importance to the Chinese tradition of cherishing reputation. Before appearing in court, he announced that he would donate $51,111 to the Los Angeles Police Department as an education fund. Why did he donate it to the LAPD, which works for the prosecution? Because the main reason for his testimony is that there is something wrong with the evidence collection work of the LAPD, especially the poor level of the main forensic detectives. Coincidentally,
the main forensic detective who was attacked by defense lawyers was also a Chinese. Dr. Li, who was born in Taipei Police School, is the director of the criminal identification laboratory of the police headquarters in Connecticut, which means that he is an employee of a subordinate unit of the Ministry of Justice. The federal and state justice departments are in charge of prosecuting criminal cases, but he traveled all the way from the northeast of the United States to the southwest to testify for a major murder suspect prosecuted in another state. This is a very normal thing in America.
Providing scientific evidence, whether for the defendant or the prosecutor, is exactly the same for a scientific worker. The difference is that testifying for a celebrity like Simpson can get much higher remuneration, but this time he
donated the predetermined remuneration to his opponent in court. However, even if he doesn't donate the money, he won't be under any external and psychological pressure. On the contrary, after the defense announced that he would testify, the comments of experts on TV every day were full of admiration, as if waiting for a big star to appear.
He was entrusted by Simpson's lawyer Shapiro to have a physical examination for Simpson, to prove that he
had no signs of struggle. The photos of these examinations were presented in court. He also made some inferences based on the photos of the crime scene. One of the most important things is that after analyzing a scene photo, he thinks that one of the < P > traces is "the second pair of footprints". If this proves to be true, it will be a major breakthrough.
Because only one person's footprints were found at the scene except the victim, although the shoes of the perpetrator were never found
, the size of the footprints was consistent with Simpson's, and it was determined that they were a pair of expensive shoes that only the rich would be interested in
. The prosecution believes that Simpson committed the crime alone. Dr. Li's discovery is a "reasonable doubt". There is an extremely important principle in criminal law, that is, the defendant only needs to raise "reasonable doubt" and does not have to prove it, which is called "burden without proof"; On the contrary, the prosecution must provide proof to "go beyond reasonable doubt", which is called "having the burden of proof", or "the burden of proof lies with the prosecution".
Therefore, the prosecution did not want this to be broken in any case, and they invited criminal experts again to
deny Dr. Li's push. In court, the prosecution also picked out irregularities in his operation from his work video.
at this time, unexpected circumstances appeared outside the court. After being refuted, Dr. Li held a press conference in his laboratory. He told reporters that there is no big conflict between his conclusion and the experts who refute him, because < P > what he said in court at the beginning was "it may be a second set of footprints", and he never said "it must be".
At the same time, he was very angry with the prosecution for picking out his irregularities in operation, accusing the prosecution of not cooperating in his operation and not providing him with proper equipment, so that he could not find gloves at all and had to operate illegally. He also
told reporters that he regretted being involved in the case. This move seems to be eager to defend his testimony, and public opinion < P > exploded for a time. Generally speaking, the role of a witness is to testify in court, and whether the testimony is successful or not is also settled in court < P >. What explanation you give for your testimony outside the court, the jury can't hear you, and it doesn't work for this case. However, this remark is obviously influential to the people outside the court and obviously not beneficial to the defense. The defense lawyer certainly didn't expect such a move. I think this is also the reason why Chinese people attach great importance to their personal reputation. What he seems most concerned about is that his long-established good reputation should not be damaged. Dr. Li's press conference is unknown to the jury, but as a world-famous criminologist, his conclusions after all kinds of analysis in court should have great influence on the jury. Regarding the < P > blood evidence presented by the prosecution, he said, "In these circumstances, the only view I can draw is that something is fishy."
And the really dramatic plot lies in the police officer Furman who found the blood gloves. No one expected that there was such a coincidence in the world that Furman, as a key witness of the prosecution, had let a playwright record a lot of his remarks intermittently in the past ten years. This is because the playwright wants to collect the material of Los Angeles police life < P >, and through the introduction of friends, he pays Furman to record the sound. You have to admire the lawyers Simpson hired.
How did they get the evidence? This is the last stage of the whole long trial, and it reached such a climax that it almost drove the judge out of the bureau as soon as he came out.
Because Judge Ito's wife is a high-ranking official of the Los Angeles Police Department and used to be Furman's boss. In Furman's recording, there are not only a lot of comments attacking blacks, but also many comments belittling Hispanics, Jews and women, including the attack on the judge's wife. Therefore, the prosecution suggested that the judge himself was also involved in this < P > case, and the contents of these recordings involving his wife may make the judge be influenced by emotions when judging whether to allow these recordings to be presented in < P > court. Therefore, the judge is required to be out. Ito also admitted with tears in court that he would feel deeply hurt like ordinary people when he heard the attack on his wife. This is really lively
. This trial, which has lasted for a long time, has been criticized a lot. Ten jurors retired, and now even the judge will be lost. Finally, after two days of heated debate, the prosecution < P > finally made a decision to wash the contents of the tape about the judge's wife in advance and no longer ask the judge to withdraw. Everyone
finally breathed a sigh of relief.
Of course, the jury was asked out of the court during this period of time, and they didn't know about this storm.
In the absence of the jury, Furman's tapes were first played in court to determine whether and which of these recordings could be played to the jury. On the day when the tapes were played, the atmosphere in the court was dignified and there was no sound. Furman's tapes reverberated not only in court, but also throughout the United States, shaking everyone. You
can feel that this is a "bull" guy, boastful and brazen. He makes no secret of his hatred for black people and boasts of his abuse of power. Most seriously, he described the police's illegal acts of forging < P > certificates and planting them with complete affirmation. Five months ago, in this court, he swore to tell the truth and claimed that he hadn't mentioned the word "nigger" for ten years. But now, in the same court, you can hear that he
declared that all blacks in the Los Angeles city government should be shot together. In fourteen hours of recording, he used the word "nigger" more than forty times. I believe you have seen all this in domestic reports.
this recording is a shock to all people in America. As I mentioned in my previous letter to you, in fact, even the Ku Klux Klan will avoid using direct racially insulting language in their propaganda,
because there have been great changes in the racial issue in the United States in the past 31 years. However, due to historical reasons and complicated factors, race is still a sensitive issue in the United States. Hearing this recording, black people are naturally angry, and most white people who are not racists are also very embarrassed.
However, after the most direct emotional agitation has passed, the most focused topic is, of course, what the recording of Furman
will bring to this trial. I think, this should first talk about what kind of
situation was before this. I mentioned the general views of Americans around me in my last letter. In fact, every night,
there are a large number of legal experts who make many authoritative comments on the development of that day. As time goes on, there are more and more differences and arguments about all kinds of situations that happened in the whole trial, but before Furman's tape came out, most legal experts thought that the case could not be decided because of the disagreement of the jury.
you may ask, what does this mean? This is because American law stipulates that no matter what verdict the jury finally makes, whether it is "guilty" or "not guilty", it must be the unanimous opinion of all the jurors. As long as there is no consensus, it means "no verdict can be made", and
this trial must be declared "failed". After the trial fails, the prosecution must make a decision immediately.
Whether to try again or dismiss the prosecution, the case will be closed as "trial failure". If you choose the former,
then all the programs that have been done once must be done again. Of course, if there is any, both sides can < P > to provide new evidence to the court, and without new evidence, they can also change the attack strategy. I'm going to take the playground
as an analogy again. The failure of the trial means that the ball has been kicked, so let's play another game and decide the outcome.
Before the Simpson case came out, there was a very sensational case in which two brothers shot their biological parents.
Their parents have huge wealth, and it seems that the motive for killing is clear. However, the two big brothers, < P > admitted to murder, but at the same time disagreed with the "first-degree murder" that they were charged with. They burst into tears in court,
saying that their parents had been sexually abusing them for a long time, and recently they suspected that their parents would "silence" them. It was
in self-defense that they were frightened to "strike first". If this statement is true, the charges and terms of imprisonment are not the same. After a few years, once released on parole, you can come out to enjoy the inheritance. The case was tried for a long time, and it was because the jury disagreed that the trial failed. The trial is being reopened recently.
Another possibility after a failed trial is to drop the charges. Sometimes, because the prosecution thinks that a retrial can't
make the jury unanimously agree on the charges they put forward, they give up. Sometimes, for purely economic reasons, the prosecution is unwilling or impossible to bear huge litigation expenses, so it gives up. In this case, it is obviously beneficial to the defendant. As for the verdict itself, it must be unanimously passed by the jury before it can be counted, which is obviously < P > but also a "cautious" rule. In my opinion, this only further demonstrates the principle of "I would rather let a thousand go than kill one by mistake" in the American judicial system.
Why do most legal experts think that the jury will disagree before the Furman tape comes out?
This reflects the complexity of the case itself. On the one hand, it has a great deal of scientific evidence; on the other hand, it has many doubts and illogicalities. Afterwards, Dr. Li even said directly that there are not many scientific evidences such as DNA that can be found in general cases like this, and the DNA evidence in this case is "so much that people are suspicious". Therefore, experts estimate that the jury will produce one faction that is convinced of a large amount of material evidence, and another faction that thinks there are too many doubts in the case. Experts think it is difficult for them to achieve unity through mutual persuasion. but